1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Itt l�i.'i, t)I AbdW THI.Nl Mims! ! April 23, 1981 Page 4 #973. Motion by Schwahn, second by Purcell to hold action in abeyance; Y yance; permit will not be approved until a plan to controlerosi_on/siltation has been developed and approved, applicant must: 1. Develope a plan to control siltation/erosion. 2. Submit a written statement of plan approval from the adjacent property owner, Mr. Hertzberger. 3. Submit a copy of the plan to the Board of Adjustment no later than May 24, 1981. Motion carried. #974. Motion by Kruschke, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 12 feet from the required setback from normal high water line. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Addition will be to an existing residence and will be located farther from the water line than the existing structure. 2. Other existing residences in the area are closer to the water line than specified by Ordinance 3. Denial of the variance would not provide additional shoreland protec- tion. CONCLUSION: a. proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is necessary to proivde right enjoyed by others. c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- terest. Motion carried. (11, #975. Motion by Voges, second by Kruschke to deny requested variances; applicant did not appear. Motion carried. #976. Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to grant a variance of 17 feet from required setback from front property line. FINDING OF FACT: 1. Addition is to an existing building and will not extend any closer to the road. 2. Location other than proposed would require a major remodeling of the building. CONCLUSION: a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance is not contary to rights of others or to the public interest. Motion carried. #977. Motion by Kruschke, second Icy Schwahn to grant a variance of 14 feet from required rear yard. i'INI)INU i)I' FACT: l Residence was made non-conforming as to rear yard by change in Zoning Ordinance. 2. A rear yard variance #362 was granted for a previous addition. • 3. Proposed addition will not extend beyond the existing roof overhang. CONCLUSION: 41r00 a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. b. Variance preserves the Zoning Ordinance as much as possible with- out injustice to applicant. c. Variance is necessary to provide right enjoyed by others. d. Hardship is caused by the Ordinance and is not self-imposed. Motion carried.